>> you are watching american history tv all weekend every weekend on c-span three. to join the conversation, like us on facebook at c-span history. >> this fall, american history tv is airing archival coverage of presidential races. next, the only debate from 1980 between jimmy carter and ronald reagan. the candidates took questions from a panel of journalists on national security and military spending, inflation, inner cities, and the iran hostage crisis. reagan defeated carter, winning the popular vote 51% to 41%. this debate from cleveland is just over 90 minutes and our coverage is from nbc news. >> good evening. i am ruth hinerfeld of the league of women voters.

next tuesday is election day. before going to the polls, voters want to understand the issues and know the candidates' positions. tonight, voters will have an opportunity to hear the major party candidates for the presidency state their views on issues that affect us all. the league of women voters is proud to present this presidential debate, our moderator is howard smith. >> thank you. the league of women voters is pleased to welcome to the cleveland, ohio convention center music hall president jimmy carter, the democratic party's candidate for reelection to the presidency, and governor ronald reagan of california, the republican party's candidate for the presidency. the candidates will debate questions onto mecca -- on

domestic, economic, foreign policy, and national security issues. the questions will be posed by a panel of distinguished journalists who are here with me. they are marvin stone, the editor of u.s. news & world report, harold ellis, william hilliard, assistant managing editor of the portland oregonian, barbara walters, correspondent from abc news. the ground rules for this as agree to you gentlemen are these -- each panelist will ask a question, the same question to each of the two candidates. after the two candidates have answered, a panelist will ask follow-up questions to try to sharpen the answers. candidates will have an opportunity to make a rebuttal. that will constitute the first half of the debate and i will state the rules for the second half later on. the candidates are not permitted to bring prepared notes to the

podium but are able to make notes during the debate. if the candidates exceed the allotted time agreed on, i will reluctantly but certainly interrupt. we ask the convention center audience to abide by one grand -- one ground rule please do not , applaud or express approval or disapproval during the debate. based on a toss of the coin, governor reagan will respond to the first question. >> governor, as you are aware, the question of war and peace has emerged as a central issue during this campaign and the give-and-take of recent weeks, president carter has been criticized for responding late to aggressive soviet impulses, for insufficient buildup of armed forces, and a paralysis in dealing with afghanistan and iran. you have been criticized for being all too quick to advocate the use of muscle and military action to deal with foreign crises, specifically, what are the differences between the two of you on the uses of american military power?

gov. reagan: i do not know what the differences might be, because i do not know what mr. carter's policies are, i do know what he has said about mine. i know in all my heart that our first priority must be world peace, and that use of force is always and only a last resort when everything else has failed. and then, only with regard to our national security. now, i believe, also, that this mission has the responsibility for meeting the peace, which is a responsibility particular to our country, that we cannot shirk our responsibility because we are the only one who can do it. therefore, the burden of maintaining the peace falls on us and to maintain that peace requires strength.

america has never gotten into a war because we were too strong. we can get into a war by letting events get out of hand as they have in the last three and a half years under the foreign policies of this administration, until we are faced each time with a crisis. good management in preserving the peace requires that we control the events and try to intercept before they become a crisis. i have seen four wars in my lifetime. i am a father of sons, i have a grandson. i don't want to see another generation of young americans bleed their lives into sandy beachheads in the pacific or rice patties and jungles in asia or the muddy battlefields of europe. >> mr. stone, do you have a follow-up question?

>> yes. we have been hearing the defense buildup you would disassociate -- you would associate yourself that would cost billions of dollars more than contemplated. assuming the american people are ready to bear this cost, nevertheless, they keep asking the following question -- how do you reconcile huge increases in military outlays with your promise of substantial tax cuts and balancing the budget, which in this fiscal year ran more than $60 billion in the red? gov. reagan: mr. stone, i have submitted an economic plan that i have worked out in concert with a number of fine economists in this country, all of whom approve it and believe in a five-year projection that this plan can permit the extra spending for needed refurbished spending on our defensive posture, that it can provide for a balanced budget by 1983, if not earlier, and that we can

afford, along with the cuts i have proposed in government spending, we can afford the tax cuts i have proposed and mainly because mr. carter's economic policy has built into the next five years and beyond that a tax increase that will be taking $86 billion more next year out of people's pockets than was taken this year. my tax cut does not come close to eliminating that $86 billion increase. i'm only reducing the amount of the increase. in other words, i am not talking about government getting less money, but cutting the increase in spending. >> the same question now goes to president carter. would you like to have the question repeated? >> the question of war and peace. a central issue in this campaign. you have been criticized in the give-and-take for responding late to aggressive soviet

impulses, for insufficient buildup of our armed forces, and a paralysis in dealing with afghanistan and iran. governor reagan, on the other hand, has been criticized for being too quick to advocate the use of lots of muscle, military action to deal with a foreign crises, as i mentioned. specifically, what are the differences between the two of you on the uses of american military power? pres. carter: mr. stone, i have had to make thousands of decisions since i have been president, serving in the oval office. with each one of those decisions that affect the future of my country and i have learned in the process how to become a much wiser and more experienced man than when i debated for -- four years ago against president ford. there are no simple answers to complicated questions. mickens said for every problem, there is a simple answer.

it would be neat and plausible and wrong. the fact is, this nation in the eight years before i became president had its own military strength decrease seven out of eight years. the budget commitments for defense went down 37% in all. since i have been in office, we have had a steady, carefully planned, methodical increase in our commitment for defense. but what we have done is used that enormous power and prestige and military strength of the united states to preserve the peace. we have not only kept peace in our own country, but extended the benefits of peace to others. in the middle east, we have worked towards a peace treaty between israel and egypt successfully and have tied ourselves together with israel and egypt in a common defense capability. this is a very good step forward for our nation's security and we will continue to do what we

have done in the past. i would also add, there are decisions made in the oval office by every president, which are profound in nature. there are always trouble spots in the world. how those troubled areas are addressed by a president alone in that oval office affects our nation directly. the involvement of the united states and also our american interests -- that is a basic decision that has to be made so frequently by every president who serves, that is what i am trying to do successfully by keeping our country at peace. >> do you have a follow-up? >> i would like to be a little more specific on the use of military power. let's talk about one area for a moment. under what circumstances would you use military forces to deal with, for example, a shut off of persian oil gulf or to counter iranan expansion beyond into afghanistan or pakistan? i asked this question that there are charges we are woefully

unable to maintain sustained power in that part of the world. pres. carter: in my state of the union address earlier this year, i pointed out that any threat to the stability or security of the persian gulf would be a threat to the security of our own country. in the past, we have not had an adequate military presence in that region. now, we have two taskforces, access to facilities in five different areas of that region, and have made it clear that working with our allies and others, that we are prepared to address any foreseeable eventuality that by commerce with that crucial area of the world. in doing this, we have made sure we address this question peacefully, not injecting american military forces into combat, but letting the strength of our nation be felt in a beneficial way. this, i believe, has assured our interests will be protected in

the persian gulf region, as we have done in the middle east and throughout the world. >> governor reagan, you have a minute to comment. gov. reagan: i question the figure about the decline in defense spending under the two administrations in the preceding eight years. i would call to your attention we were in a war that wound down during those eight years which made a change in military spending because of turning from war to peace. i would also like to point out that republican presidents in those years were faced with a democratic majority in both houses of the congress and found their requests for the defense budget were often cut. gerald ford left a five-year projected plan for a military buildup to restore our defenses and president carter's administration reduced that by 38%. they cut 60 ships out of the navy program that had been proposed and stopped the b-1, delayed the cruise missiles,

stopped the production line for the missiles, delayed the submarine, and now is planning a mobile military force that can be delivered to various spots in the world, which does make me question his assaults on whether i am the one who is quick to look for use of force. >> president carter, you have the last word on this question. pres. carter: there are various elements of defense, one is to control nuclear weapons. that is the most important single issue in this campaign. another is how to address troubled areas in the world. i think habitually, governor reagan has advocated the injection of military forces. i and my predecessors have advocated for resolving those troubles and those difficult areas of the world peacefully, diplomatically, and through negotiations. in addition to that, the buildup of military forces is good for our country because we have to have military strength to preserve the peace.

i will always remember that the best weapons are the ones that are never fired in combat, and the best soldier is one who never has to lay his life down on the field of battle. strength is imperative for peace, but the two must go hand-in-hand. >> thank you, gentlemen. the next question is for president carter. >> when you were elected in 1976, the consumer price index stood at 4.8%. it now stands at more than 12%. perhaps more significantly, the nation's broader underlying inflation rate has gone from 7% to 9%. part of that was due to external factors beyond u.s. control, notably the more than doubling of oil prices by opec last year. because the united states remains vulnerable to such external shocks, can inflation in fact be controlled? if so, what measures would you

pursue in a second term? pres. carter: it is important to put the situation into perspective. in 1974, we had a so-called oil shock, where in the price of opec oil was raised to an extraordinary degree. we had an even worse shock in 1979. in 1974, we had the worst recession, the deepest since the second world war. the recession that resulted this time was the briefest we have had since the second world war. in addition, we have brought down inflation. earlier this year, in the first quarter, we had a very severe inflation pressure that was brought about by the opec price increase. it averaged about 18% the first quarter. the second quarter, we dropped it down to 13%. the most recent figures of the third quarter, the inflation rate is 7%. still too high, but it

illustrates vividly that in addition to providing an enormous number of jobs -- 9 million new jobs in the last three and half years -- the inflation threat is still urgent on us. i noticed governor reagan recently proposed something his own running mate described as voodoo economics and said it would result in a 30% inflation rates. businessweek said that this proposal was completely irresponsible and would result in inflationary pressures that would destroyed this nation. our proposals are sound and carefully considered to stimulate jobs, improve the industrial complex of this country, create tools for american workers, at the same time would be anti-inflationary in nature. to add 9 million jobs, control inflation, plan for the future with an energy policy intact as

a foundation is our plan for the years ahead. >> do you have a follow-up question? >> mr. president, you mentioned the creation of 9 million new jobs. at the same time, the unemployment rate still hangs high, as does the inflation rate. i wonder, can you tell us what additional policies you would pursue in a second administration in order to bring down that inflation rate? would it be an act of leadership to tell the american people that they are going to have to sacrifice to adopt a leaner lifestyle for some time to come? pres. carter: we have demanded the american people sacrifice, and they have done very well. we are importing today about one third less oil from overseas than we did a year ago. we have had a 25% reduction since the first year i was in office.

at the same time, we have added about 9 million net new jobs in that period of time, a record never before achieved. also the energy policy has been , predicated on two factors -- conservation, which requires sacrifice, and an increase in production of american energy. more coal this year than ever before in history. a new economic revitalization program we have in mind would be implemented next year, it would result in tax credits that would let businesses invest in new tools to create more jobs in the next two years and we also have planned a youth employment program, which would encompass 600,000 jobs for younger people. this has already passed the house and has an excellent prospect to pass in the senate. >> governor reagan, would you like to have the question repeated? >> during the past four years,

the consumer price index has risen from 4.8% to currently over 12%. perhaps more significantly, the nation's broader underlying rate of inflation has gone from 7% to 9%. part of that has been due to external factors beyond u.s. control and notably, the more than doubling opec oil prices last year. which leads me to ask you whether, since the united states remains vulnerable to such external shocks, can inflation in fact be controlled? if so, specifically what measures would you pursue? gov. reagan: i think this idea that has been spawned in our country that inflation somehow came upon us like a plague and therefore is uncontrollable and nobody can do anything about it is dangerous to say this to the people. when mr. carter became president, inflation was 4.8%, as you said. it had been cut in two by

president gerald ford. it is now running at 12.7%. president carter also spoke of the new jobs created, we always with new growth and an increase in population increased number of jobs, but that cannot hide the fact there are 8 million men and women out of work in america today, and 2 million of those lost their jobs in the last few months. mr. carter also promised he would not use unemployment as a tool to fight against inflation. yet, his 1980 economic message stated we would reduce gross national product and increase unemployment to get a handle on inflation because at the beginning of the year, it was more than 18%. since then, he has blamed for inflation opec, the federal reserve system, the lack of productivity of the american people, he has been accused of people living too well, and we must share in scarcity,

sacrifice, and get used too doing with less. we do not have inflation because people are living too well, we have inflation because the government is living too well. the last statement was a speech to the effect that we have inflation because government revenues have not kept pace with government spending. i see my time is running out, i will have to get this done fast. yes, you can lick inflation by increasing productivity and decreasing the cost of government to the place where we have balanced budgets and are no longer grinding out printing press money, flooding the market with it because the government is spending out more than it takes in. my economic plan calls for that. the president's economic plan calls for increasing taxes to the point where we finally take so much money away from the people that we can balance the budget in that way, but we will have a very poor nation and unsound economy if we follow that path. >> a follow-up? >> you have centered on cutting

government spending in what you said about your own policies. you have also said you would increase defense spending. specifically, where would you cut government spending if you were to increase defense spending and also cut taxes so that, presumably, federal revenues would shrink? gov. reagan: well, most people when they think about cutting government spending, they think in terms of eliminating unnecessary programs or wiping out some service the government is supposed to perform. i believe there is enough extravagance and fat in government -- as a matter of fact, one of the secretaries under mr. carter testified he thought there was $7 billion worth of fraud and waste in welfare. and with the medical programs associated with it. we have had the general accounting office estimate that

there is probably tens of billions of dollars lost in fraud alone and they have added waste adds more to that. we have a program for a gradual reduction on government spending based on these theories. i have a task force working on where those cuts could be made. i am confident it can be done and it will reduce inflation because i did it in california and inflation went down below the national average in california when we returned money to the people and reduced government spending. >> president carter. pres. carter: governor reagan's proposal is one of the most highly inflationary ideas that has been presented to the american public. he would have to cut government spending by at least $130 billion to balance the budget under this ridiculous proposal. i noticed his task force is working for his future plans, some of their ideas revealed in the wall street journal this week. one idea was to repeal the minimum wage. several times this year,

governor reagan said the major cause of unemployment is the minimum wage. this is a heartless approach to the working families of our country, which is typical of many republican leaders in the past, and i think it has been accentuated under governor reagan. in california -- i am surprised governor reagan brought this up -- he had the three largest tax increases in the history of that state under his administration. he more than doubled state spending while he was governor -- 122% increase. he had between a 20% and 30% increase in the number of employees. >> governor reagan has the last word on this question. gov. reagan: the figures the president just used about california is a distortion of the situation there. while i was governor of california, our spending in california increased less per capita than the spending in

georgia while mr. carter was governor of georgia in the same four years. the size of government increased only 1/6 in california of what it did in accordance to population in georgia. the idea that my tax cut proposal is inflationary, i would like to ask the president, why is it inflationary to let the people keep more of their money and spend it when they like, and it is not inflationary to let him take the money and spend it the way he likes? >> i do not want that question to be rhetorical, but it will have to be because we ran it up time. the third question to governor reagan from william hilliard. >> the decline of our cities have been hastened by a rise in crime. strained race relations, falling quality of public education, and a decline in the services to the public. the signs seem to point toward a

deterioration that could lead to the establishment of a permanent underclass in the cities. what specifically would you do in the next four years to reverse this trend? gov. reagan: i have been talking to a number of congressmen who have the same idea i have, and that is in the inner city areas, that in cooperation with local government and with national government, and using tax incentives and cooperation from the private sector, we have development zones that the local entity, the city, declare this particular area based on the standards of the percentage of people on welfare, unemployed and so forth in that area. then, through tax incentives, induce businesses providing jobs in those areas. the elements of government through these tax incentives -- for example, a business that would not have for a period of

time a property tax reflecting its use of property that it was making -- would not be any lost city if this it is not getting any tax from them now. there would simply be a delay. many people who would be given jobs are presently wards of the government and it would not hurt to give them a tax incentive because that would not be costing government anything either. there are things to do in this regard. i stood in the south bronx in the exact spot president carter stood in 1977. you have to see it to believe it -- it looks like a bombed out city. skeletons of buildings, windows smashed out, painted on one of one of them, "unkept promises." this was a spot at which president carter had promised he would bring in a vast program to rebuild this department -- this

area. there are whole lots of land that are bare. nothing has been done. they are now charging to take tourists through there to see this terrible desolation. i talked to a man who asked me one simple question -- do i have reason to hope that i can someday take care of my family again? nothing has been done. >> follow-up? >> blacks and other nonwhites are increasing in our cities . many feel the face hostility from whites that keep them from joining the economic mainstream. there is racial confrontation in the schools, on jobs, and in housing as nonwhites look to get the benefits of a free society. what you think is the nation's future is as a multiracial society? gov. reagan: i am eternally optimistic and i believe we have made great progress from the days i was young and this country did not know it had a

racial problem. i know those things can grow out of despair in an inner-city, when there is hopelessness at home, lack of work, and so forth. i believe the presidency is what teddy roosevelt said -- it is a "a bully pulpit." the goal for all of us should be that one day, things should be done neither because of or in spite of any of the differences between us -- ethnic differences or racial differences, whatever they may be. but we will have total equal opportunity for all people and i will do everything i can in my power to bring that about. >> mr. hilliard, would you repeat your question for president carter? >> the decline of our cities has been hastened by the continual rise in crime, strained race relations, the falling quality of public education, the

persistence of inequality in the cities. the signs seem to point towards a deterioration that could lead to the establishment of a permanent underclass in the cities. what specifically would you do in the next four years to reverse this trend? pres. carter: when i was campaigning in 1976, the mayors and local officials were in despair about the rapidly deteriorating central cities of our nation. we initiated a very fine urban renewal program, working with the mayors and governors and other interested officials. this has been a very successful effort. it is one of the main reasons we have had such an increase in the number of people employed. 9 million people put to work in jobs since i have been in office. 1.3 million of those has been among black americans and another one million among those who speak spanish. we are now planning to continue the revitalization program with increased commitments of rapid

transit, mass transit. we expect to spend $43 million to rebuild the transportation systems of our country. we also are pursuing housing programs. we have had a 73% increase in the allotment of federal funds for improved education. these are the kinds of efforts worked on a joint basis with particularlyders, in minority areas of the central cities that had been deteriorating so rapidly in the past. it is important to us that this be done with the full involvement of minority citizens. i have brought into the top levels of government, the white house and administrative offices of the executive branch, into the judicial system, highly qualified black and spanish citizens and women that had in the past been excluded. i noticed that when governor reagan said that as a young man

there was no knowledge of a racial problem in our country. those that suffer from discrimination from race or sex certainly knew that we had a problem. we have come a long way towards correcting these problems, but we still have a long way to go. >> follow-up question? >> president carter, i would like to repeat the same follow-up question to you. blacks and other nonwhites are increasing in number in our cities. they feel they are facing hostility from whites that keeps them from joining the economic mainstream of our society. there is racial confrontation in schools, jobs, as nonwhites seek to reap the benefits of a free society. what is your assessment of the multiracial society? pres. carter: ours is a nation of refugees and immigrants. almost all of our citizens came from other lands. they now have hopes which are being realized for a better

their ethnicing commitments, the religious beliefs, and their relationships with their relatives in foreign countries. but still pulling themselves together into a very coherent society that gives our nation -- its strength. in the past, those minority groups have been excluded from the participation in affairs of the government. since i have been president, i have appointed more than twice as many black federal judges as all previous presidents. i have done the same thing in the departments of women and also spanish-speaking americans. to involve them in the administration of government and a feeling that they belong to the societal structure that makes decisions is a very important commitment that i'm trying to realize and continue to do so in the future. >> governor reagan, you have a minute for rebuttal. gov. reagan: the president

talks of government programs. they have their place. as governor, when i was receiving some of these grants for government programs, i saw that many of them were dead ends. they were public employment for people who really want to get the private market where there are jobs for the future. the president spoke that i was against minimum wage. i wish he could have been with me when i sat group of teenagers who were black and who were telling me about their unemployment problems and that it was the minimum wage that had done away with the jobs they once could get and indeed every time it has increased, you will find there was an increase in minority unemployment among young people. therefore, i have been in favor of a separate minimum for them. with regard to the great progress that has been made with government spending, the rate of black unemployment in michigan is 56%. >> president carter, you have

the last word. pres. carter: it is obvious that we still have a long way to go in incorporating minority groups into the mainstream of american life. we have made good progress, and there is no doubt in my mind that the commitment to unemployment compensation, minimum wage, national health insurance, those kinds of commitments that have typified the democratic party since ancient history in this country's political life are a very important element of the future. all of those elements, governor reagan has repeatedly spoken out against them, which to me it shows very great insensitivity to giving deprived families a better chance in life. this, for me, is very important difference between him and me in this election. i believe the american people will judge accordingly. there is no doubt in my mind that in the downtown central cities with the new commitment on an energy policy, with a chance to revitalize homes and make them more fuel-efficient,

with a chance for a synthetic fuel program, solar power, this >> now for the question. country areof the on our land. respondtion to how we to terrorism goes beyond this curis is -- this crisis. and will not negotiate with terrorists. do you have a policy for dealing with terrorism wherever it may happen? and what have we learned from this experience that might cause us to do things differently if this was -- if this or something similar happens again? blights on this world is a threat and activities

of terrorists. economic the recent conferences between myself and other leaders of the western world. world, against terrorism. airplane hijacking was one of the elements. there is no doubt that we have seen in recent years, in recent months, additional acts of violence against jews in france and against those who live in israel. serious terrorist threat is if one of those radical nations who believe in terrorism should have atomic weapons. both i and all of my predecessors have had a deep commitment to controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons in countries like libya or a rack. -- iraq.

governor rankin -- governor aagan asked that he makes disturbing comment that weapons are none of our business. when he was asked specifically about iraq, he said there is nothing we can do about it. this terrorist threat is the most fearsome of all and is part of a pattern where our country must stand firm to control terrorism of all kind. >> while we are discussing had iran not taken american hostages we would have thought the flow of spare parts now offering to lift the ban if they let our people come home.

this reward terrorism? we will maintain our position orion -- iny in the iran iraq-- in the war. when i made my decision to stop all trade with iran as a result of the taking of hostages, i announced then and have maintained that if the hostages are released safely, we would make delivery on those items which iran owns. also that the frozen iranian assets would be released. that has been a consistent carry -- that has been a consistent policy. governor, the eyes of the

, israel considers future theor the country has the right to know do you have a policy for dealing with terrorism wherever it might happen? what have we learned from this experience that could cause us to do something different if something similar should happen again? asked that question twice, i believe you should have at least one answer to it. i have been accused of having a secret plan with regard to the hostages. this comes from an answer that i have made at least 50 times. few anytion would be a ideas of what you would do if you were there? i said well yes. i think anyone seeking this position as well as other people have thought to themselves what

about this, what about that. these are ideas of what i would think of if i were in that position and had access to the information in which i would know all of the options that would be open to me. i have never answered the , second. however i would be fearful that i might say something that was presently underway and thus expose it. sometimes i think some of my ideas might involve quiet diplomacy where you don't say in advance or say to anyone what you are thinking of doing. your question is difficult to answer because the situation right now, no one wants to say anything that would inadvertently delay the return of those hostages if there is a chance of them coming home soon or that may cause them harm. what i think should be done is once they are safely here with their families and that tragedy

is over and we've endured this timeiation, i think it's for us to have a complete investigation as to the diplomatic efforts that were made in the beginning, why they have been there so long and when they come home, what do we have to do -- what did we have to do to bring that about? i would suggest congress should hold such an investigation. i'm going to continue praying that they come home. >> another candidate answered specifically the question of a specific policy, but i will ask a different follow-up question. you suggested that there would be no iranian crisis had you been president. we wouldou -- because have given firmer support to the shop. are resisting a government. my question is not whether the shop regime is preferable, but

whether the united states has the power to determine what form of government any country will have. do we back unpopular regimes that they are friendly to the united states? >> the degree of unpopularity of a regime when the choice is --al authoritarian is him wonderarianism makes one whether you are being helpful to the people. because someone did not meet exactly our standards of human trying tostead of persuade them to change their aided andve in overthrow with each desk -- which results in totalitarianism. time, we are thetaining a detente with

soviet union. there was a second phase in the iranian affair in which we had some thing to do with that. we had adequate warning that there was a threat to our embassy and we could have done with other -- we could have done what other embassies did before the kidnap and take over took place. >> president carter you have a minute for rebuttal. hear any comment about what he would do to stop or reduce terrorism. western allies did decide they would stop all commercial air flights to any nation involved. second, we all committed ourselves as did all that does not third not to make

any material or weapons to a nation that is involved in terrorist activities. not to deal with the plo. recognizes -- these are a few of the things to which our nation is committed and we will continue with these commitments. >> governor reagan, you have the last word on that question. >> i have no quarrel with the things that have been done because i believe it is time that civilized countries of this world has that of this world need to make it clear that there is no room for terrorism. word, ihave a last would like to correct a misstatement by the president. i have never made the statement that he suggested about nuclear liberation and nuclear --

nuclear proliferation. >> thank you, gentlemen. that is the first half of the debate. the rules for the second half, quite simple. they are only complicated when i explained them. the second half, the panelist with me have no follow-up questions. after the panelists have asked a question, the candidates will have two opportunities to follow-up or just to comment. reagan will respond in this section to the first question from marvin stone. thehe president said it was single most important issue. both of you have expressed the desire to end nuclear arms race with russia, but by methods that are vastly different. you suggest we scrap treaty already negotiated and intensify the buildup of american powder to induce the soviets to sign a

new treater -- a new treaty, one more favorable to us. as nick carter says he will again try to convince a reluctant congress to ratify the presidenteaty -- and carter says he will again try to convince a reluctant congress to ratify the present treaty. >> i think i'm right because i believe that we must have a consistent foreign policy, a strong america and a strong economy. as we build up our national security to restore our margin of safety, we try to restrain the soviet buildup which has been going forward on a rapid pace and for quite some time. the treaty was the result of the carter'sons that mr. team entered into after he had asked the soviet union for a discussion of actual reduction

of nuclear strategic weapons. taking that one know from the intot union we went back negotiations on their terms because mr. carter had canceled the b-1 bomber, delayed the .ruise missile the soviet union set at the table knowing that we had gone forward with unilateral concessions without any reciprocation from them. treaty as blocked the mr. carty and mr. mondale have suggested that i have, it was blocked by a senate. the senate armed service against theted 10-0

treaty and declared it was not in the national security interest of the united states, besides which it is illegal. the law says we cannot accept a treaty in which we are not equal and we are not equal in this treaty for one reason alone. our b-52 bombers are considered to be strategic weapons. >> i have to interrupt you. the same question for resident carter. >> both of you have expressed -- desire to and the root and the arms race. the governors suggest we saw -- , andrap the treaty intensify the buildup of american power to induce soviets to sign a new treaty, one more favorable to us. you say you will try to convince

a reluctant congress to ratify the present treaty on the ground it's -- on the grounds it's the best we can get from the russians. thinkou tell us why you you are? inflation, unemployment, the cities all very important issues. in the life and duties of a president when compared to control of nuclear weapons. every president that has served since harry truman has been dedicated to the proposition of controlling nuclear weapons. to negotiate with the soviet union, balanced controlled, severable -- on controlled. supported any of those arms controlled

agreements. nor theted test ban, anti-ballistic missile treaty. he wants to throw into the wastebasket a treaty to control nuclear weapons on an -- on a balanced and equal basis. the senate has not voted yet on the strategic arms limitation treaty. there have been preliminary screw machines in the committees of the senate -- there have been .reliminary skirmishes it's understandable that a preliminary debate can make an irresponsible statement or may be an ill-advised statement.

you've got 99 other senators to correct that mistake if it is .ust -- if it is a mistake take this treaty, discarded, do not vote, do not debate, do not explore the issues, do not capitalize on this negotiation. that is a very dangerous and disturbing thing. >> i'd like to respond very much. have been union, if i critical of some of the previous agreement it's because we have been out negotiated for quite a long time. they have managed and spite of all our attempts to go forward with the biggest military buildup in the history of man. to suggest because two republican presidents try to pastor treaty that puts him -- that puts them on their side, president ford who was in 94% of a treaty we could be in agreement with west emphatically

against -- was emphatically against. senators like henry jackson and hollings of south carolina, they are taking the lead in the fight against this particular treaty. i am not talking of scrapping. i am talking of taking the going back into negotiations and i would say to the soviet union we will sit and negotiate with you as long as it takes to have not only legitimate arms limitation but to have a reduction of these nuclear weapons to the point that neither of us represents a threat to the other. that is hardly throwing away a treaty. >> president carter? is makingr reagan some very misleading and disturbing statements. he not only advocates the scrapping of this treaty and i don't know that these man are against the treaty.

he also advocates the possibility, he said it's been a -- ofg element, a planting a trump card against russia. if president said we will scrap this treaty, negotiated over a seven year. , and we we insist upon believe the launching of a nuclear arms race is a good basis for future negotiations it's obvious that i as president and all americans would reject such a proposition. this would mean the presumption of a very dangerous nuclear arms race. it would be very disturbing to the american people. it would change the basic tone and commitment that our nation has experienced.

also be very disturbing to our allies who support this nuclear arms treaty. the adversarial relationship between ourselves and the soviet union would deteriorate rapidly. this attitude is extremely dangerous and belligerent in its tone. >> governor reagan? >> i know the president is supposed to be replying to me, but i'm having a hard time withcting what he's saying what my positions are. sometimes i think it's the witch doctor that gets mad about the doctor who comes along with what will work. already i have made with regard to negotiating, it does not call for nuclear superior -- superiority. it calls for a mutual reduction of these weapons to the point that neither of us could represent a threat to the other. to suggest that the treaty that

negotiated orrs just a continuation and based on preceding efforts by two previous presidents is just not true. it was a no she get -- it was a negotiation because resident ford wasn't 10% of having a within 10% ofs having a solution. president carter, you have the last word on this question. >> to close out this discussion, it would be better to put into perspective what we are talking about. i had a discussion with my daughter the other day before i came here to ask her what the most important issue was. she said nuclear weaponry. this is a formidable force. some of these weapons have 10 megatons. tnt,u put 50 megatons of

you would have a carload of tnt stretching across this nation. explosion major war in a warhead. equivalent ofnds .egaton or million ton control of these weapons is the single, major response ability of a president. to cast out this commitment of all presidents because of some slight technicality can be corrected is a very dangerous approach. >> we have to go to another question now. >> mr. president, as you have said americans through conservation are importing much less oil today than we were a year ago. dependence on arab oil as a percentage of imports is

much higher than it was in the 1973 oil embargo. the loss of substantial amounts of arab oil could lunch the u.s. into a depression. bes means that a bridge must built. can the united states develop synthetic fuels and other alternative energy sources without damage to the environment. mean steadilyess higher fuel bills for american families? >> i don't think there's any doubt that in the future the cost of oil is going to go up. what i've had is a basic commitment since i've been president is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. conserve energy to stop the waste of energy and reduce more american energy. we have been very successful in both cases. we've now reduced the importing

in the last year alone by one third. we imported today 2 million barrels of oil less then we did the same day just one year ago. -- opening up a very bright vista for our nation because when the windfall profits as a use american two technology and american natural resources to expand rapidly energyic fuels, solar and also to produce conventional kind american energy. we will drill more oil and gas than any year in history. we will produce more coal than any year in history. we are exporting more coal this year than any year in history. we have the opportunity now to improve loading facilities, to see a very good opportunity to a basicopec oil as

energy source. this exciting future will not only give us more energy security, we will open up vast opportunities for americans to live a better life associated with this industry because of the new energy policy that we have put into effect. >> would you repeat the question now for governor reagan? >> americans are importing much less oil today than we were even a year ago. yet, u.s. reliance on arab oil as a percentage of total imports is much higher today than it was 1973 oile 19 -- embargo. the question is whether the development of alternative energy sources in order to

reduce this dependence can be done without damaging the environment and what will it mean for american families? means not so sure it steadily higher fuel costs, but i do believe that this nation has been portrayed as being energy poor when it is energy rich. the coal the president mentioned, yes we have it. the minds -- the coal mines are closed down. this is due to regulations which -- which interfere with the mining of it or prevent the burning of it. yes, we can burn our coal within limits of the clean air act. i think as technology improves, we will be able to do better with that. -- wee only released out -- it is believed by

everyone familiar with that fuel and that source of energy that there are vast supplies yet to be found. out ofernment has taken multiple use millions of acres of public lands that once were subject to multiplet -- multiple use. it is believed that probably 70% of the potential oil in the united states is probably hidden in those lands. no one is allowed to go explore to find out if it is there. nuclear power, there were 36 power plants. let me add the word safety. up andhose have given canceled their plans to build and again, because government

regulations make it take more than twice as long to build a nuclear plant in the united states as it does in western europe. we have the sources here. we are energy rich. coal is one of the greatest potentials we have. >> president carter, your comment? have, this year, the produce 800to , andon tons of coal unequaled record and history of our country. governor reagan says this is not a good achievement and he blames restraint on coal production on regulations. regulations that affect the life and health and safety of miners. also regulations that protect the purity of our air. we cannot cast aside those regulations.

we have a chance in the next 15 years insisting upon the health and safety of workers in the minds and preserving the same high air and collision -- and pollution standards. it's to repeal boards -- it's to repeal the tax. -- to start -- to short-circuit our synthetic fuel program. strongly nuclear power plants. he wants to put all of our eggs in one basket and give that basket to the major oil companies. >> governor reagan. freehappen to believe that into prize can do a better job at producing the things that the

people need than the government can. the department of energy has a multimillion dollar budget. for mr. cardi -- mr. carter to suggest that i want to do away with the safety laws and with the laws that pertain to clean water and clean air, as governor of california i have the charge of passing the strictest air-quality law in the united states. ocean, andan safety has before the federal government had one. i think some of those charges are missing the point. i missed -- i am suggesting that there are literally thousands of unnecessary regulations that

invade every facet of business and very much of our personal lives. the government can do without that have added costs -- added to the cost of production. i would like to see us a little more free as we once were. president carter, another crack at that? the laws that were passed in california were passed over the objections of governor reagan. this is a very well-known fact. when someone suggested that the occupational safety the -- safety and health, the president responded amen. the offshore drilling rights is a question that governor reagan raises often. in the proposal for the alaska lands legislation, 100% of all the offshore lands would be off

-- would be open for exploration. we have, with our five-year plan for the leasing of offshore lands, proposed more land to be drilled that has been opened up for drilling since this program started in 1954. so we are not adding restraints on american exploration, we are encouraging it in any way we can. >> governor reagan, you have the last word. fmr. governor reagan: it is a well-known fact i opposed air pollution laws in california. the president must be suggesting a law the federal government tried to impose on the state of california, not a law, regulations, that would have made it impossible to drive an automobile within the limits of any california city or have a place to put it, if you did drive it, against their

regulations. it would have destroyed the economy of california. . we had the support of congress when we pointed out how ridiculous this attempt was by the environmental protection agency. we still have the strictest air pollution laws in the country. as for offshore portland, only 2% now is the and is producing while -- producing oil. whether lands are going to be open in the next five years or so, we are five years behind and what we should be doing. there is more oil now in the wells that have been drilled that has been taking out in the 121 years that they have been drilled. >> thank you, governor. thank you, mr. president. the next question goes to governor reagan from william hilliard. >> wage earners in this country, especially the young come are supporting a social security system that continues to affect

their income drastically. the system is fostering a struggle between the young and old and is drifting the country toward a polarization of these groups. how much longer can the young wage earner expect to bear the ever-increasing burden of the social security system? fmr. governor reagan: the social security system was based on a false premise regarding how fast the number of workers would increase on how fast the number of retirees would increase. it is out of balance. this became evident 16 years ago. some of us were voicing warnings then. now, it is trillions of dollars out of balance. and the only answer that has come so far is the biggest tax increase and our nation's history, the payroll tax increase for social security, which will only put a band-aid on this and postpone the day reckoning by a few years at most . i have needed is a study proposed by a task force, to look at this entire problem, as

to how it can be reformed and made actuarially sound, but with the premise that nobody presently dependent on social security is going to have the rug pulled up from under them, and not get their check. we cannot frighten, as we have with the threats and campaign rhetoric that has gone on during this campaign, our senior citizens, leaving them thinking they are endangered and have no place to turn. they must continue to get those checks and i believe the system can be put on a sound actuarial basis. it is going to take study and work, not just passing a tax increase to let the load or the roof fall lien on the next administration. >> would you repeat that question for president carter? in this country, especially the young come are supporting a social security system that continues to affect their income drastically. the system is fostering a struggle between young and old

and is drifting the country toward a polarization between these groups. how much longer can the young wage earner expected to bear the ever-increasing burden of the social security system? president carter: as long as there is a democratic president in the white house, we will have a strong, viable social security system, free of the trap of bankruptcy. although governor reagan has changed his position, on four different occasions he has advocated making social security voluntary, which would quit the corrupted. i noticed in the wall street journal this week that a preliminary group of his task force advocate making social security more sound by reducing the adjustments in social security for the retired people, to compensate for the impact of inflation. these kinds of approaches are very dangerous to the security and well-being and peace of mind of the retired people of this country, and those approaching retirement age. but no matter what it takes in the future to keep social

security sound, it must be kept that way. although there was a serious threat to the social security system and its integrity during the 1976 campaign when i became president, the action of the democratic congress working with me has been to put social security back on a sound financial basis. and that is the way it will stay. >> governor reagan? fmr. governor reagan: that just isn't true. it has delayed the actuarial imbalance falling on us for just a few years, with that increasing taxes. and i don't believe we can go on increasing the taxes because a problem for the young people today is, they are paying in far more than they can ever expect to get out. this statement that somehow i wanted to destroy it and just ranged i tune, that i am for voluntary social security would mean the ruin of it, mr. president, the voluntary thing i suggested many years ago was

that a young man, orphaned and hised by an aunt who died, aunt was ineligible for social security insurance because she was not his mother. i suggested that if this is an insurance program, certainly the person paying and should be able to name his own beneficiaries. that is the closest i have ever come to anything voluntary with social security. pledged to a social security program that will reassure senior citizens they will continue to get their money. there are changes i would like to make, i would like to change regulations that discriminate against a wife who works, and finds that she then is faced between a choice of her father or husband's benefits if he dies first, or what she has paid in, but it doesn't recognize that she has also been paying in herself and is entitled to more than she can presently get.

i would like to change that. >> president carter's rebuttal now. these constantr: suggestions that the basic social security system should be changed does cause concern among the aged of our country. it is obvious we should have a commitment to them that social security benefits should not be taxed, and that there would be no program three change in the standards by which social security payments are made to retired people. we also need to continue to index social security payments, so if inflation rises, social security payments would rise to a commensurate degree. and let the buying power of a social security check continue intact. in the past, the relationship between social security and medicare has been very important to provide some modicum of need for senior citizens, and the retention of health benefits.

governor reagan began his political career campaigning around this nation against medicare. now, we have an opportunity to move toward national health insurance with an emphasis on the prevention of disease, on outpatient care, not inpatient care, emphasis on hospital cost containment to hold down the cost of care for those who are ill, and emphasis on catastrophic health insurance so that if a family is threatened with being wiped out economically because of a very high medical bill, then the insurance would help pay for it. these are the elements of a national health insurance that are important to the american people. governor reagan typically is against such a proposal. >> governor? fmr. governor reagan: there you go again. when i proposed medicare, there was another piece of legislation meeting the same problem before the congress. i happened to favor the other piece of legislation and thought

it would be better for the senior citizens than the one that was finally passed. i was not opposing the principle of dividing care for them i was opposing one piece of legislation versus another. there is something else about social security. it doesn't come out of the payroll tax, it comes out of the general fund. something should be done about it. it is disgraceful that the disability insurance fund in social security finds checks going every month to tens of thousands of people who are locked up in our institutions ,or crime or for mental illness and they are receiving disability checks from social security every month, while a state institution provides for all their needs and their care. >> president carter, you have the last word on this. debate oncarter: this social security, medicare, national health insurance, typifies as vividly as any other subject tonight the basic

historical differences between the democratic party and the the allusionsty, to basic changes in the minimum wage is another, and the deleterious comments governor reagan has made about unemployment. they have been extremely important to the growth and better quality of life. i noticed recently that governor reagan frequently quotes democratic presidents, in his acceptance address and otherwise. i have never heard a candidate for republican candidate for president two is a republican quote another republican, but when they get into office, they govern like a republican. it is good for the american people to remember that there is a historic difference between governor reagan and me on these issues, as well as the two parties we represent. moderator: thank you, mr.

president. we go to president for president carter by barbara walters. barbara: thank you you have addressed a ton of major issues, but the biggest issue is your ability to lead this country. when many voters go into the booth a week from today, they will be voting there -- voting their gut instinct about you two men. please tell us with your final question why they should not vote for your opponent, why his presidency would be harmful to the nation, and having examined both your opponent's record and the man himself, tell us his greatest weakness. reluctant as ir: am to say anything critical about governor reagan, i will try to answer your question. [laughter] there is the historical perspective i just described. this is a contest between a democrat and the mainstream of my party, as exemplified by the

actions i have taken in the oval office the last four years, as contrasted with the governor reagan, who in most cases does typify his party, there is a radical departure by him from the heritage of eisenhower and others. crucial important difference in this election campaign is the approach to the control of nuclear weaponry. and the inclination to control or not control the spread of ,tomic weapons to other nations particularly terrorist nations. the inclination governor reagan has exemplified in many troubled times since he has been running for president, i think to inject since to inject american 1968, military forces in places like north korea, or to put a blockade around cuba this year, or two project american forces into a fishing dispute against the small nation of ecuador on

the west coast of south america, this is typical of his long-standing inclination on the use of american power, not to resolve disputes diplomatically and peacefully, but to show an exercise of military power is best proven by the actual use of it. obviously, no president wants war. and i certainly do not believe that governor reagan, if he were president, would want war. but the president in the oval office has to make a judgment on almost a daily basis about how powerrcise the enormous for diplomacy, and peace or in a careless way, , a belligerent attitude which has exemplified his attitudes in the past. >> would you repeat the question for governor reagan?

barbara: realizing you may be equally reluctant to speak ill of your opponent, may i ask why people should not vote for your opponent why his presidency , could be harmful to the nation and, having examined both your opponent's record and the man himself could you tell me his , greatest weakness? fmr. governor reagan: barbara i , believe there is a fundamental difference and i believe it is in the answers mr. carter has given tonight. i happen to believe that the federal government has authority that belongs back at the state and local level, it has imposed on the individual freedoms of the people, and that there are more things that could be solved by people themselves if they were given a chance, or by the levels of government that were closer to them. now, as to why i should be and he shouldn't be, when he was a candidate in 1976, president

carter invented a thing he called the misery index. he added the rate of unemployment at the rate of inflation and it came at that 12.5 under president ford. and he said, no man with that size misery index had a right to seek reelection to the presidency. today, by his own decision, the misery index is in excess of 20%. and i think this must suggest something. but when i have quoted a democratic president, i was a democrat. i said many foolish things back in those days, the president i quoted not made a promise, a democrat promise and i quoted , him because it was never kept. and today, you would find that the promise is at the heart of what republicanism represents in this country today.

and that is why believe there are going to be millions of democrats that are going to vote with us this time around because they want this promise kept. it was a promise for less government and less taxes and more freedom for the people. >> president carter. president carter: i mentioned the radical departure of governor reagan from the principles and ideals and historical perspective of his own party. i don't think this can be better illustrated than in the case where we guarantee equal rights of women under the constitution. for 40 years, the republican party platforms called for guaranteeing women equal rights with a constitutional amendment. six predecessors of mine who served in the office -- who served in the oval office called for this guarantee of women's rights. governor reagan and the new republican party has departed from this commitment, a severe

blow for the opportunity of women to correct the discrimination they have suffered. when a man and women do the same amount of work, a man get paid a dollar, a woman only gets paid $.59. and the equal rights amendment only says that equality of rights should not be abridged for women the federal government or by the state governments. simple all it says, a guarantee of equality and opportunity which typifies an important commitment of mind, as contrasted with governor reagan and the long-standing parter of the policies of his own party. >> governor reagan. mr. governor reagan: president, once again, i happen to be against the amendment. because i think this amendment will take the problem out of the hands of legislators and put it in the hands of unelected judges. while you have been in office for four years not one single

, state has added to the ratification or voted to ratify the equal rights amendment. while i was governor more than eight years ago, i found 14 separate instances where women were discriminated against in the body of california law, and i had passed and signed into law 14 statutes that eliminated those discriminations, including the economic ones you just mentioned, equal pay and so forth. in all theset, if years that we spent trying to get the amendment, if we spend as much time correcting these laws as we did in california, if i were president, i would also now take a look at the hundreds of federal regulations which discriminate against women and which go right on, while everyone looks for an amendment. herdld have someone ride in those regulations that we would start eliminating those discriminations in the federal government against women.

>> president carter. president carter: i am a southerner. and i share the basic beliefs of my region about intrusion into the private affairs of of american citizens and also into , the private affairs of the free enterprise system. one of the commitments that i made was to deregulate the major industries of this country. we've been remarkably successful, with the help of a democratic congress. we have deregulated the air industry, the rail industry, the trucking industry, financial institutions. we're now working on the communications industry. in addition to that, i believe this element of discrimination is something that the south has seen so vividly as a blight on our region of the country which , has now been corrected. not only racial discrimination but discrimination against , people that have to work for a living, because we have been trying to pick ourselves up by our bootstraps since the long depression years, and lead a full and useful life in the affairs of this country. we have made remarkable success. it is part of my consciousness and of my commitment to continue this progress.

so my heritage as a southerner, my experience in the oval office, convinces me that what i have just described is a proper course for the future. mr. smith: governor reagan, yours is the last word. fmr. governor reagan: well, my last word is again to say that, we were talking about this very simple amendment and women's rights. and i make it plain again, i am for women's rights. but i would like to call the attention of the people to the fact that that so-called simple amendment could be used by mischievous men to destroy discriminations that properly belong, by law, to women, respecting the physical differences between the two sexes, labor laws that protect them against doing things that would be physically harmful to them. those would all, could all be challenged by men. and the same would be true with regard to combat service in the military and so forth. i thought that was the subject we were supposed to be on, but if we're talking about how much we think about the working people and so forth, i'm the

only fellow that ever ran for this job who was six times president of his own union and still has a lifetime membership in that union. mr. smith: gentlemen, each of you now has three minutes for a closing statement. president carter, you're first. president carter: first of all, i'd like to thank the league of women voters for making this debate possible. i think it's been a very constructive debate and i hope , it's helped to acquaint the american people with the sharp differences between myself and governor reagan. also, i want to thank the people of cleveland and ohio for being such hospitable hosts during these last few hours in my life. i've been president now for almost four years. i've had to make thousands of decisions, and each one of those decisions has been a learning process. i've seen the strength of my nation, and i've seen the crises that it approached in a tentative way. and i've had to deal with those crises as best i could. as i've studied the record

between myself and governor reagan, i've been impressed with the stark differences that exist between us. i think the result of this debate indicates that that fact is true. i consider myself in the mainstream of my party. i consider myself in the mainstream even of the bipartisan list of presidents who served before me. the united states must be a nation strong. the united states must be a nation secure. we must have a society that's just and fair. and we must extend the benefits of our own commitment to peace, to create a peaceful world. i believe that, since i've been in office, there have been six or eight areas of combat evolved in other parts of the world. in each case, i alone have had to determine the interests of my country and the degree of involvement of my country.

i've done that with moderation, with care, with thoughtfulness, sometimes consulting experts. but i've learned in this last three and a half years that when an issue is extremely difficult, when the call is very close, the chances are the experts will be divided almost 50-50. and the final judgment about the future of the nation -- war, peace, involvement, reticence, thoughtfulness, care, consideration, concern -- has to be made by the man in the oval office. it's a lonely job, but with the involvement of the american people in the process, with an open government, the job is a very gratifying one. the american people now are facing, next tuesday, a lonely decision. those listening to my voice will have to make a judgment about the future of this country. and i think they ought to remember that one vote can make a lot of difference. if one vote per precinct had changed in 1960, john kennedy would never have been president of this nation. and if a few more people had gone to the polls and voted in

1968, hubert humphrey would have been president, richard nixon would not. there is a partnership involved. band -- and our nation, to stay strong, to stay at peace, to raise high the banner of human rights, to set an example for the rest of the world, to let our deep beliefs and commitments be felt by others in other nations, is my plan for the future. i ask the american people to join me in this partnership. mr. smith: governor reagan? mr. reagan: yes, i would like to add my words of thanks, too, to the ladies of the league of women voters for making these debates possible. i'm sorry that we couldn't persuade the bringing in of the third candidate, so that he could have been seen also in these debates. but still, it's good that at least once, all three of us were heard by the people of this country. next tuesday is election day. next tuesday, all of you will go to the polls, will stand there in the polling place and make a

decision. i think when you make that decision, it might be well if you would ask yourself, are you better off than you were four years ago? is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? is america as respected throughout the world as it was? do you feel that our security is as safe, that we're as strong as we were four years ago? and if you answer all of those questions yes, why then, i think your choice is very obvious as to who you you will vote for. if you don't agree, if you don't think that this course that we've been on for the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next four, then i could suggest another choice that you have. this country doesn't have to be

in the shape that it is in. we do not have to go on sharing in scarcity, with the country getting worse off, with unemployment growing. we talk about the unemployment lines. if all of the unemployed today were in a single line allowing two feet for each of them, that line would reach from new york city to los angeles, california. all of this can be cured and all of it can be solved. i have not had the experience the president has had in holding that office, but i think in being governor of california, the most populous state in the union, if it were a nation, it would be the seventh-ranking economic power in the world, i, too, had some lonely moments and decisions to make. i know that the economic program that i have proposed for this nation in the next few years can resolve many of the problems that trouble us today. i know because we did it there. we cut the cost, the increased

cost of government, in half over the eight years. we returned $5.7 billion in tax rebates, credits, and cuts to our people. we, as i have said earlier, fell below the national average in inflation when we did that. and i know that we did give back authority and autonomy to the people. i would like to have a crusade today, and i would like to lead that crusade with your help. and it would be one to take government off the backs of the great people of this country, and turn you loose again to do those things that i know you can do so well, because you did them and made this country great. thank you. >> ladies and gentlemen, for 60 years, the league of women voters has been committed to effectiveucation and participation of americans in political and governmental affairs. the most critical element of all in that process is an informed

citizen who goes to the polls and votes. on behalf of the league of women voters, i would like to thank president carter and governor reagan for being with us in cleveland tonight. and, ladies and gentlemen thank , you and good night. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [applause]

[indiscernible conversations] >> american history tv is on social media. follow us at c-span history. >> you are watching american history tv, covering history c-span style with event coverage, eyewitness accounts, college films, classrooms and visits to museums and historic places come all weekend every weekend on c-span3. bookshelf,history senator chris dodd talks about

his book, "letters from nuremberg: my father's narrative of a quest for justice." father, thomas dodd, was a prosecutor of nazi leaders after world war ii, and wrote on a daily basis to his wife about the war criminals, the process and his observations. quinnipiac university hosted the event in october 2007. thomas: good evening. i am thomas justin dodd, thomas j. dot's grandson. i have spent a fairmont of time reflecting on this book, the stories that were told on the lessons to be learned. i was struck by the humanness of the story, how it wraps a story of love with a story of ambition, within the context of one of the truly landmark events of the 20th century, an event that embodied justice over tyranny. i chose a i hopemb